Measure 1
Portfolio Assessment Forms

Measure 2
Capstone Course Evaluations

As our Assessment Form template delineates, there are twelve criteria by which we gauge Professional Readiness. All Year 3 & 4 students in Cinematography, Directing, Picture Editing & Sound Design, Producing, and Screenwriting (our two-year disciplines) and all Year 2, 3, & 4 students in Animation and Production Design (our three-year disciplines) were assessed (in the classroom and in production) on a 4-point scale. The numbers that follow each professional readiness criterion listed below indicate the combined average scores of this student population:

1. Organizational skills: 3.47
2. Time management skills: 3.33
3. Ability to meet deadlines: 3.38
4. Ability to communicate clearly using industry terms: 3.57
5. Commitment from development to delivery of project: 3.61
6. Recognition of own limitations/knowing when to ask for help: 3.43
7. Attitude and work ethic, honesty in dealing with peers, faculty and staff: 3.67
8. Presentation of self and work: 3.54
9. Demonstrated knowledge of workflow from development through post: 3.56
10. Demonstrated respect for equipment and facilities: 3.74
11. Ability to problem-solve: 3.55
12. Demonstrated proficiency with equipment/software: 3.6

Overall average Professional Readiness score for this student population: 3.53

Further, responses from questions relevant to Professional Readiness on our Spring 2016 Capstone Course Evaluations data reveal the following averages (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating “Strongly Agree”):

• Course fulfills the goals/learning outcomes as stated on the syllabus: 4.53
• My commitment to this subject has grown significantly as a result of this course: 4.54
• I have a greater command of the subject matter than I did before taking this course: 4.66

Interpretation
The Capstone Course Evaluation data reported above are strong, with an overall Professional Readiness score of a 4.58 average on of our 5-point scale.

The results of the portfolio assessment data with regard to Professional Readiness also demonstrate to us that we are achieving this learning outcome. Areas of strength include our students’ commitment from development to delivery of project; attitude and work ethic, honesty in dealing with peers, faculty and staff; and demonstrated respect for equipment and facilities.

At the same time, we note that there is need of improvement for our students in the areas of time management and their ability to meet deadlines. These numbers are slightly lower than we’d like, although we note a slight increase between this year’s data and last year’s on these two Professional Readiness criteria:

AY 2014-2015

• Time management: 3.24
• Ability to meet deadlines: 3.33

AY 2015-2016

• Time management: 3.33
• Ability to meet deadlines: 3.38

In order to improve our students’ ability to better manage their time and meet deadlines, we will make adjustments to our advising and mentoring methods: starting in the Fall Semester 2016, all faculty will be directed to emphasize to their advisees these two crucial aspects of professional readiness. Further, during our monthly Department Chairs meetings, the Dean, Associate Dean, and Assistant Deans will review with our Department Chairs where in our overall program our students’ course loads may be heavier or lighter during a semester, and cross-check this information with the number of assigned projects and due-dates.  

Measure 1
Portfolio Assessment Forms

Measure 2
Capstone Course Evaluations

1. Ability to create and recognize dimensional characters: 3.45
2. Demonstrated understanding of character motivation: 3.45
3. Ability to create/recognize dramatic tension: 3.51
4. Ability to articulate storyline and theme: 3.42
5. Ability to identify the turn of a scene: 3.44
6. Ability to create/recognize the connection between story beats: 3.48
7. Ability to pre-visualize intention: 3.48
8. Originality of concept: 3.45
9. Ability to apply technical skills towards aesthetic objectives: 3.46

Overall average Effective Storytelling score for this student population: 3.46

Further, responses from questions relevant to Effective Storytelling on our Spring 2016 Capstone Course Evaluations data reveal the following averages (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating “Strongly Agree”):

• Course fulfills the goals/learning outcomes as stated on the syllabus: 4.53
• Includes assignments [that] enhance my understanding of the subject matter: 4.56
• Professor provides constructive verbal or written assessment of my creative work: 4.66

Interpretation
The Capstone Course Evaluation data reported above in Findings are strong, with an overall Effective Storytelling Skills score of a 4.54 average on of our 5-point scale.

In order to improve our students’ ability to better articulate storyline, theme, and the turn of a scene, starting in the Fall of 2016 the Dean, Assistant Deans, and Department Chairs of Producing, Directing, and Screenwriting will look at the various course syllabi within which story analysis is taught, and find ways to incorporate more practice in this skill-set across the curriculum. For example, for our required Year One “Fundamentals of Screenwriting” class, we will make sure that the faculty (who will all teach from the same syllabus) will includes exercises geared towards the students’ understanding of the basic tenets of story structure, theme, plot, character, conflict, etc.

For the Fall of 2017, then, we will make sure that our Screenwriting, Producing, and Directing faculty are all incorporating the same industry-standard terminology of storytelling in their classes, beginning with Year One, which will ensure that our students are communicating more effectively by fully understanding this shared vocabulary. 

Measure 1
Portfolio Assessment Forms

Measure 2
Capstone Course Evaluations

As our Assessment Form template delineates, there are five criteria by which we gauge Creative Collaboration. All Year 3 & 4 students in Cinematography, Directing, Picture Editing & Sound Design, Producing, and Screenwriting (our two-year disciplines) and all Year 2, 3, & 4 students in Animation and Production Design (our three-year disciplines) were assessed (in the classroom and in production) on a 4-point scale. The numbers that follow each creative collaboration criterion listed below indicate the combined average scores of this student population:

1. Participation/attitude in dealing with peers, faculty and staff: 3.67
2. Constructive critique of others’ work: 3.54
3. Ability to receive criticism and adjust accordingly: 3.55
4. Ability to resolve conflicts in order to achieve creative intention: 3.48
5. Ability to prioritize dept. needs w/in project's budgetary constraints: 3.61

Overall average Creative Collaboration score for this student population: 3.57

Further, responses from the question relevant to Creative Collaboration on our Spring 2016 Capstone Course Evaluations data reveal the following averages (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating “Strongly Agree”):

• Enables greater understanding of collaborative relationships between departments on a film: 4.53

Interpretation
The Capstone Course Evaluation data reported above in Findings are strong, with an overall Creative Collaboration Skills score of a 4.53 average on of our 5-point scale.

The results of the portfolio assessment data with regard to Creative Collaboration also demonstrate to us that we are achieving this learning outcome. Areas of strength include our students’ participation and attitude in dealing with their peers, faculty, and staff; and their ability to prioritize their department’s needs within the overall budgetary constraints of their film projects.

At the same time, we note that there is need of improvement for our students in the skill area of conflict resolution. A comparison between last year and this year on our creative collaboration criterion shows no appreciable change:

AY 2014-2015

• Ability to resolve conflicts within a department to achieve the creative intention: 3.47

AY 2015-2016

• Ability to resolve conflicts within a department to achieve the creative intention: 3.48

Often in collaborative endeavors, conflicts occur. In order to help our students get better at conflict resolution, starting in the Fall of 2016 the Dean, Assistant Deans, and all Department Chairs will discuss ways of addressing this issue. One plan is to develop an annual “leadership workshop” for our students and to require their participation during Intensive Arts in December 2016. Further, the Producing department holds weekly “post mortem” meetings after the weekend productions; these meetings are centered around resolving on-set conflicts and concerns. During the School of Filmmaking Faculty retreat in August of 2016, the Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Deans, and all Department Chairs will formalize a plan to include more departments in these weekly meetings, for implementation in the upcoming academic year: since filmmaking is a collaborative endeavor, all departments on a project will then be able to hear, review, and resolve any conflicts that arise.

Measure 1
Subject Area Tests

Measure 2
Course Evaluations

An integral component of the training of the “complete” filmmakers is the study of film history and aesthetics: an artist should be well-versed in one’s art. Towards that end, we require four Cinema Studies courses across Years One and Two of our program, regardless of the student’s eventual concentration. Students may take more Cinema Studies classes as electives over their remaining two years, if they wish. Subject matter ranges across standard expectations in the field; students are tested via essay exams and written papers, and assessed along a 4-point scale:

Year One (required Cinema Studies classes)

• Fall 2015: FIM 1301 (American Film History I): average score 3.38
• Spring 2016: FIM 1302 (American Film History II): average score 2.40

Year Two (required Cinema Studies classes)

• Fall 2015: FIM 2301 (Classics of World Cinema I): average score 3.10
• Spring 2016: FIM 2302 (Classics of World Cinema II): average score 3.34

Years Three & Four (sampling of elective Cinema Studies classes)

• Fall 2015: FIM 3761: Documentary Film: average score 3.7
• Spring 2016: FIM 3334: Realism & the Cinema: average score 3.2

Overall average score from testing data above: 3.19

Further, responses from questions relevant to comprehension of film history and aesthetics on Course Evaluations data from Spring 2016 reveal the following averages (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating “Strongly Agree”):

• Course fulfills the goals/learning outcomes as stated on the syllabus: 4.61
• Includes assignments/readings/screenings that enhance my understanding of the subject matter: 4.64
• I have a greater command of the subject matter than I did before taking this course: 4.59

The overall average from the above course evaluation data: 4.61.

Interpretation
The Course Evaluation data reported above in Findings are strong, given the overall Comprehension of Film History & Aesthetics score of a 4.61 average on of our 5-point scale.

Further, the overall results of the data gleaned from the assessment measure of Subject Area Tests also meets our expectations: the overall average of 3.1 on our 4-point scale exceeds our benchmark of 2.7.

That said, we do note that the average test score for the Year One Spring Semester required Cinema Studies class in American film history is slightly lower than our benchmark, at 2.4. Last year’s average score for the same subject area test was 3.0.

We will continue to require a minimum of four Cinema Studies courses across our undergraduate program. Comprehension of American film history in particular is a crucial part of the mix of subject areas we teach. Given this year’s slightly lower average score in this subject area, the Ass’t Dean of Academics will meet with the professor to review the course syllabus and discuss modifying teaching or testing methods, for implementation during Spring 2017.